The
mass slaughter of innocents by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway has
highlighted the selective perception of such heinous acts of terrorism
by U.S. and Western media.

Although
those who study terrorism cannot seem to reach a standard definition
of terrorism — perhaps because past actions of their own governments
might be so classified (for example, using atomic bombs or massive numbers
of firebombs on civilian populations during World War II) — a simple
working definition, slaughtering innocent civilians for the political
reason of changing their government’s policy, seems to work just fine.
By this straightforward standard, both Breivik’s action in Norway
and al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in New York would
easily fit that definition. So far so good in analyzing things.

But
when the Western media ascribe motivation for such incidents, however,
a double standard seems to arise. Instead of focusing on Breivik’s
stated identity as a right-wing Christian whose lengthy manifesto
called for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim
domination, Western media have focused on his hatred of immigration
and multiculturalism (except The New York Times, which first
called him a “Christian extremist,” but has since apparently changed
his moniker to “anti-immigrant extremist” or “anti-Islamic extremist”). In contrast,
although President George W. Bush always insisted that his “war on
terror” was not a “war on Islam,” many Western media often refer
to al-Qaeda as “an Islamist terrorist group” and some commentators
speculate on whether Islam is an inherently violent religion, or so
imply or even state.

Yet
Western media sweep under the rug the religion-related motives of Breivik,
Eric Rudolph, the U.S. abortion bomber, and Adolf Hitler, who clearly
believed his Christian God wanted him to slaughter millions of Jews.
These individuals are instead usually referred to as deranged or racist.
These certainly might be apt characterizations — and we might even add
brutal and ruthless — but the main point is that religious motives are
downplayed in these cases, yet are accentuated in the case of al-Qaeda
and other terrorist groups that are Islamic.

The
Western media should be more consistent and honest in their coverage.
Neither Christianity nor Islam, in most of their modern forms, despite
violence or brutality in their scriptures written long ago, are inherently
prone to violence or the spawning of terrorists. Religious motives
played only a secondary role in explaining all of the aforementioned
terrorists’ actions. In Breivik’s case, he clearly hated Muslim
immigration and multiculturalism and the non-Muslim Norwegians who he
thought were fostering them. In the case of al-Qaeda, the root
motivation of the attacks is not Islam, but the meddling in and occupation
of Muslim lands by the United States and its Western allies. So
stated religious identification may play some role in the attacks, but
not a dominant one.

Religion
may divide people into groups based on fundamentally different and potent
spiritual outlooks, but other factors, such as race, ethnicity, geography,
class, and wealth can also segment populations into factions and cause
conflict.

In
the case of al-Qaeda, focusing on Islam is just a way of avoiding a
much-needed introspective examination of U.S. foreign policy to see
if unneeded, and often counterproductive, U.S. interventions in the
Muslim world could be eliminated, thus taking the fire out of the movement
(instead of enhancing the status of the group by expanding the war against
it).

Ironically
and tragically, in the case of Breivik, religious bigotry may aid his
cause. Although Muslims weren’t his direct target, his manifesto
decrying Muslim immigration has reopened a festering wound in Norway and Europe.
Pressure could very well build to curtail future Muslim immigration
so that it will not be a lightning rod for future terrorist attacks
by extremists such as Breivik — a classic case of blaming the victim.

201203620416 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Feland%2F2011%2F07%2F26%2Fthe-west-has-a-double-standard-in-terrorism-cases%2FThe+West+Has+a+Double+Standard+in+Terrorism+Cases+2011-07-27+06%3A00%3A10Ivan+Elandhttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012036204 to “The West Has a Double Standard in Terrorism Cases”

''both Breivik’s action in Norway and al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in New York would easily fit that definition''.

May I suggest that AB BREIVIKS confirmed he did what the whole world saw,Did Al Qaeda or for that matter even claimed they did WTC 9/11.That what the definition of Terror ism very very complex but very very wasy for the Powerful.

''both Breivik’s action in Norway and al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in New York would easily fit that definition''.

May I suggest that AB BREIVIKS confirmed he did what the whole world saw,Did Al Qaeda or for that matter even OBL claimed they did WTC 9/11.Thats what make the definition of Terrorism very very complex but very very easy for the Powerful.

Hitler clearly stated that religious discrimination was ridiculous. He wanted to expel the Jews because they weren't European. It had nothing to do with religion. If he was alive today, he would want to expel Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Asians and Africans and he wouldn't give a rat's arse whether they were Muslims, Christians or atheists. He would fully understand ethnic cleansing in Palestine. What part of racist is hard to understand? When the Allies were starving the parts of Europe ruled by Nazis, it wasn't the poor who died like the million and a half Iraqis under the US blockade. That was and is acceptable to Westerners. Those who died from malnutrition and disease were nearly all Jews, Gypsies and Eastern Europeans selected on a racial basis. Westerners are still disgusted that the wrong people died so Hitler's racism should be obvious to them. He was not prejudiced against the poor or the faithful of any religion. Morally, it makes no difference whether you support the death of the poor or a particular race so Hitler wasn't more evil than many of today's Westerners. donthomson1@hotmail.com

Here's another example of a double standard that's being played out on both sides of pond, so to speak: it is socially exceptionable to be bigoted against Muslims, while it's NOT socially exceptionable to be bigoted against blacks. This is why I've come to believe that had the Palestinians been black instead of brown and Christian instead of Muslim, as is the case with South African blacks, Palestinians would have already been freed from Israeli apartheid decades ago, just as South African blacks were freed from white apartheid decades ago. Thinking back as well as counter factually, had South African whites bought off most of our leading news outlets and most of our leading politicians, as the Israeli Jews have done, then they too would have maintained their apartheid grip over their black counterparts living in South Africa.

What the Israeli Jews have learned from South African whites is that it takes more than enormous diamond wealth to buy enough political influence to keep an apartheid state intact. What they have learned from them is that it takes enormous wealth from Wall Street, and especially the wealth from the global banking cartel, to buy enough political influence to keep an apartheid state intact.

wrong Cynthia , White South africans were afraid of black South africans , for good reason too . The blacks natrualy want what the white people have . Look at Rohdesia ! do you think the country is better off ? Aparthied would die a naturual death just like slavery in a just society . The world rulers that have had no experience living with canibals should sometimes keep their mouth shut . Nelson Mandella was only one great man , But he may have bit off more than he could chew . You must keep in mind it is also possible to take a country and a people backwards easier than forward . Dr Martin Luther King the baptist preacher understood he was travelling down a very tight rope . He and Nelson had no choice but to do it like they did .

Again you are wrong Cynthia Israel is not a Apartheid State . muslims , Arabs and blacks can and do live in Israel . They can and do anything the Jews do . Israel is a Jewish state , they do not have to allow just anybody to move into their state . This is like all other countries . The goverenment selects who and what people they want in their state . Its the Palestinians that want to establish a aparthied state if they should become a state . They want all Jews to move out of their new country , if they should become a country . Incidently they have never ever been a country ever before . Most muslim countries have aparethied laws known as shariah laws .